3 ms·

We call it a "Mastodon instance" because we implemented the entire Mastodon API (https://docs.joinmastodon.org/api/ https://docs.joinmastodon.org/api/). This is

We call it a "Mastodon instance" because we implemented the entire Mastodon API (https://docs.joinmastodon.org/api/ https://docs.joinmastodon.org/api/). This is in addition to also implementing the ActivityPub API which Mastodon also implements for federation.

CharlesW 3y ago
> We call it a "Mastodon instance" because we implemented the entire Mastodon API… Except "Mastodon instance" means an instance of Mastodon, which is open source. Whether or not it was intended to be deceptive (I'd think a group of smart people would know better), this personally left a bad taste in my mouth.
legi0nary 3y ago
If you can do this with Bluesky once it federates we might be able to get away from twitter for good.
- INTPenis 3y ago
  >We spent nine person-months building our scalable Mastodon instance They federated this brand new code in 9 months, and bluesky still hasn't released anything regarding federation. Don't keep your hopes up, it would kill their business model to let anyone run part of the network. People-driven networks are just not compatible with commercially driven ones, name one successful example.
dools 3y ago
"Originally, Twitter was one, monolithic application built with Ruby on Rails. But now, it's divided into about two hundred self-contained services that talk to each other. Each runs atop the JVM, with most written in Scala and some in Java and Clojure"[1] So is Twitter not a Twitter instance? Like if it looks, walks and toots like a Mastodon, is it not a Mastodon instance? [1] https://www.wired.com/2013/09/the-second-coming-of-java/ https://www.wired.com/2013/09/the-second-coming-of-java/
mal-2 3y ago
That doesn't match the way people use the term though. Pleroma and Akkoma implement the Mastodon API but wouldn't be called Mastodon instances since they aren't running Mastodon.
mattl 3y ago
Mastodon-compatible would be better. Mastodon is the name of a piece of software as well as an API, a website, etc. Naming this stuff is hard but calling it a Mastodon instance would be more confusing.

CharlesW 3y ago

> We call it a "Mastodon instance" because we implemented the entire Mastodon API… Except "Mastodon instance" means an instance of Mastodon, which is open source. Whether or not it was intended to be deceptive (I'd think a group of smart people would know better), this personally left a bad taste in my mouth.

legi0nary 3y ago

If you can do this with Bluesky once it federates we might be able to get away from twitter for good.

INTPenis 3y ago
>We spent nine person-months building our scalable Mastodon instance They federated this brand new code in 9 months, and bluesky still hasn't released anything regarding federation. Don't keep your hopes up, it would kill their business model to let anyone run part of the network. People-driven networks are just not compatible with commercially driven ones, name one successful example.

dools 3y ago

"Originally, Twitter was one, monolithic application built with Ruby on Rails. But now, it's divided into about two hundred self-contained services that talk to each other. Each runs atop the JVM, with most written in Scala and some in Java and Clojure"[1] So is Twitter not a Twitter instance? Like if it looks, walks and toots like a Mastodon, is it not a Mastodon instance? [1] https://www.wired.com/2013/09/the-second-coming-of-java/ https://www.wired.com/2013/09/the-second-coming-of-java/

mal-2 3y ago

That doesn't match the way people use the term though. Pleroma and Akkoma implement the Mastodon API but wouldn't be called Mastodon instances since they aren't running Mastodon.

mattl 3y ago

Mastodon-compatible would be better. Mastodon is the name of a piece of software as well as an API, a website, etc. Naming this stuff is hard but calling it a Mastodon instance would be more confusing.